Rossi: Leonardo ‘Warship’ Ready With Robotics to Rapidly Produce Low Price E-Cats, ‘Burn Out’ Competition

pweet is pure speculation... not worth considering

Thomas

Since you have clearly engaged in the exchange regarding the excellent research of 'Edmund Storms' I can only conclude his views, as noted by me earlier, on this thread, are not 'off topic' as you claimed. I know this is as close as I am going to get to an apology, but I accept it anyway, thank you.

Best regards
Frank

@TomClarke

All the BS that you cloth in scientific certitude is invalidated because the nickel inside the Lugano reactor melted. The core temperature exceeded 1450C. KISS.

Quote from bocijn

pweet is pure speculation... not worth considering

You are too harsh. 99% of posts here are pure speculation...

Quote

All the BS that you cloth in scientific certitude is invalidated because the nickel inside the Lugano reactor melted. The core temperature exceeded 1450C. KISS.

I have not elaborated this point. But I don't disagree with you - you make a plausible case for the ash tested having come from a different reactor than the one in which the fuel was inserted. As you know, that has been my strong view for other reasons.

PS - Nothing has ever been simple about Rossi's tests. What better evidence for this than the novel use of IR thermography without temperature control to establish temperature of an alumina surface?

Thomas

NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK

Quote from Thomas Clarke

You are too harsh. 99% of posts here are pure speculation...

But there are some looking for a needle and others just piling on more hay. So I suppose a warship with robotics is not what anyone is expecting.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Pweet, from ECN,

I believe he either had, or hoped to find during the 12 month period of the test, a way of fudging the results either by under reading the input energy or over reading the output energy, and then passing off the deception without being discovered by any overseers of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].

Now, we might think that would be an impossible task, to put one over the ‘entity responsible for verification, but then no more difficult a task than it was to fool a team of independent professors in the Lugano test who could discuss the matter between themselves and look of possible errors. And yet this deception was done to perfection.

I've seen enough positions taken on Rossi over the last few years to be able to start to codify them in a simple codification scheme. The position expressed above is the "Rossi as expert magician" position. In this position, readers are asked to allow that Rossi is an expert magician who is able to pull off a series of magic shows that purport to demonstrate an overunity device but which in reality is nothing more than a resistance heater. Some notes about this specific argument:

• Since Rossi is putting on a (magic) show, his behavior is intentional. The unavoidable implication is fraud. We see the judgment of intentionality in the fact that "deception" and "done to perfection" are used.
• The magical show must be expert, for Rossi has allowed the testers some leeway for negotiating the test protocol, as happened in Lugano.
• The Pomp and Ericsson critique, in which the proposal was made that a laser might have been used to heat the E-Cat from a distance, is a variation of this argument.

For Thomas, this is very interesting overactivity, as everyone waits for test results to appear sooner.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “All the BS that you cloth in scientific certitude is invalidated because the nickel inside the Lugano reactor melted. The core temperature exceeded 1450C. KISS.”

I have not elaborated this point. But I don't disagree with you - you make a…

NiAl Alloys may have a higher melting point > 1600C see WO2002092265 for a deeper discussion!

Just for comming back to the facts...

Quote

Since Rossi is putting on a (magic) show, his behavior is intentional. The unavoidable implication is fraud. We see the judgment of intentionality in the fact that "deception" and "done to perfection" are used.

Science when not understood seems like magic... In this case you could argue that the "magic show" is ingeniously devised by Rossi, who however believes that he has really shown LENR, his ingenuity being to get the right circumstances, measurements, etc, to show correctly the real effect.

I personally don't see that as a sensible position. But to show fraud from this you need to get into Rossi's mind, his understanding of the technology, and prove that he believes the results are not real. A few minutes looking at ECW tells you that passionate belief in this area need not be rational. Suppose for example that Rossi believes sincerely that he has observed a specific effect, but on the day it is demonstrated he needs to "help it along" in order to get the same results he observes without help normally. That is dishonest, but not fraudulent unless investors rely on that demo, and are not told about the "help" that was necessary to avoid a PR fiasco.

Consider the Lugano results. Clearly rubbish. Rossi however may believe that the Lugano scientists, writing a long report which they have never corrected after saying they would if needed do that, are more trustable than the many people who have poked a hole in the Lugano results. He therefore believes with absolute certainly that his device works, and has been shown to work under independent testing. Can you prove that this is a deliberate facade and not a genuine belief? Does the argument that "he must have known" work?

Quote

The magical show must be expert, for Rossi has allowed the testers some leeway for negotiating the test protocol, as happened in Lugano.

Well the bottom line is that the magic worked for Lugano - and it is certainly known to be magic. But whether that is because the magician is expert or his audience is particularly bad at detecting magic tricks is not determined.

@Wyttenbach

NiAl Alloys may have a higher melting point > 1600C see WO2002092265 for a deeper discussion!Just for comming back to the facts...

That is one reason why I have not explored this matter myself, nor do I commit myself to Axil's view. There are other reasons, like the possibility of chemical power bursts generating local heating but mainly I have much too little information to reason properly. Axil however seems quite certain, so if you view that as a reliable indicator the argument progresses. Personally, I see this as a possible indication that the reactor was swapped but it is very speculative.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “Since Rossi is putting on a (magic) show, his behavior is intentional. The unavoidable implication is fraud. We see the judgment of intentionality in the fact that "deception" and "done to perfection" are used. ”

Science when not understood…

What is the aim of these endless speculations about the coat/fur of an ice bear drifting on a lost shell?

Lugano was a fake test as I mentioned several times before. If You can read mass spectrum outputs than you know this. But here reasoning ends. Rossi sent an old model of the E-cat and used fuel for that he possibly knew that no radiation burst might happen.
I guess, from a business point of view, the only purpose of Lugano was to show the public that LENR is real and this is also confirmed by (Lugano) mass spectrometry. ('LENR was real' does not imply a COP > 1!!)

Hi all

The economics of Rossi's policy is the same as one we used in a market to wipe out our competitors, we were successful.

It is a well known strategy and very effective when you are up against an established market with entrenched players sitting behind lines of legal protections and purchase convention built up over decades. Where new technology makes radical market changes possible; if you are first to market with a strong and cheap product you can move the market out of the one controlled by the established and entrenched players, to a market that you control.

We moved the market from government contracting on the cost plus model, to Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS); a market our competitors had no experience of and were not economically equipped to survive. Within 5 years we went from low cost market entrant to being the key player in simulation.

If Rossi [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and the rest of Leonardo's licensees follows the same strategy they will be the biggest businesses in the solar system.

Kind Regards walker

Quote from Wyttenbach

Lugano was a fake test as I mentioned several times before. If You can read mass spectrum outputs than you know this. But here reasoning ends. Rossi sent an old model of the E-cat and used fuel for that he possibly knew that no radiation burst might happen.I guess, from a business point of view, the only purpose of Lugano was to show the public that LENR is real and this is also confirmed by (Lugano) mass spectrometry. ('LENR was real' does not imply a COP > 1!!)

I applaud you for this attempt to reconcile facts with your views: far preferable than just ignoring contrary facts.

This independent test was a big deal for Rossi. With investment and patents hanging on the results. As for the public, they have not been convinced anything works - because the only extraordinary results come from ash handled by Rossi that has Ni and Li isotopic composition similar to that of readily bought materials.

Do you think the bogus COP=3 was just a surprising coincidental error, and Rossi expected low COP? Or do you think he was mis-measuring COP=1 as COP=3 in-house? Or do you think that he deliberately tried (and succeeded) in misleading the testers?

Best wishes, Tom

Quote from Shane D.

Once we get it, then we will have a better idea if this story will play out longer...say if the test wasn't really as neutral as advertised, or if it is the real deal, well then hold on to your hats, because we are in for a heck of a ride!

Assume for the moment an unequivocally positive report and summary will be released by the expert responsible for validation (ERV). Even in this scenario, I'm doubtful the needle will move all that much. A positive report will attract more people like Huw Price and will lead to initiatives like the one in India, where they're spinning up 16 research teams to focus on LENR. But I do not think there will be much publicity in the mainstream press. There will of course be plenty of controversy around the ERV report, even if it has been skillfully executed, if only because the topic matter is so controversial.

@Thomas Clarke
Regarding the comments by Wyttenbach: Rossi has said, possibly even before the Lugano results, that without SSM mode the distinction between the Cat and Mouse disappears. He also only claimed a COP of 1.1 for the Mouse. This may suggest that using the Lugano device without SSM (decided by the Professors) essentially only the Mouse operation was enabled.
(The screw up of the output was entirely by the Professors, since they were in charge, IMO. )
Therefore the low to no COP might be expected, and the strange isotopic results could be a product of the abnormal extended operation of what is supposed to be a brief stimulation effect.
This amongst many other theories..... But it does have some sort of consistent relation to comments made by Rossi.
I'll go dig up the Mouse comments for timing relative to the Lugano test period to see if they actually pre-date the test results and, more importantly, the beginning of the test.

we revolutioned the technology separating the activation from the E-Cat, making 2 separated apparatuses in the same house: mouse ( activator) and Cat. This has enhanced the efficiency of the E-Cat
-JoNP March 25, 2013
-----------
Q: Does the cat and mouse both utilize separate electrical resistance based heating elements, or is the resistance element utilized by the mouse/activator the only source of external heat in the entire ECAT?
A: the only source of external energy is the resistance of the Activator
-JoNP May 10, 2013
------------
The average COP of the activator is 1.02 – 1.1; the average COP of the E-Cat is from 100 to 200. Margin of error about 10%. The activator is turned on for about the 35% of the operation time. This is what we are getting from prototypes working in these days in the USA.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
-------------
Q: Could you, if possible, give us an idea of what the ratio of thermal output of the Ecat to thermal input to the activator is when both are active.
A: They are never active together.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
--------------
Activator and E-Cat never go at the same time.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
------------
while the activator is on the E-Cat is off. the E-Cat, when operates, is always in ssm. with this configuration, since the Activator has a COP that allows to produce energy equal or more ( even if slightly) to the energy consumed, the resulting COP is the one of the E-Cat, otherwise you can make the average, but at this point the concept of COP changes foundamentally.
-JoNP May 11, 2013
------------
Q: What is the power output of the Mouse?
A: this depends on the model of the apparatus. In the basic Hot Cat it is about 1 kW
-JoNP May 12, 2013
------------
Q: Have you run the Cat & Mouse configuration at temperatures higher than 350 degree Celsius? If so, what temperatures?
A: yes, up to 1 000 Celsius
-JoNP May 16, 2013
------------
Q: Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?
A: No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.
-JoNP October 11, 2014